Are we there yet? Anybody still in doubt that a Trump Presidency is a national disaster?

[repoman0]

You're bitching and didn't even bother to vote? Really?

Read the thread next time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Read the thread next time.

All 29 pages...no thanks.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Here's the quick version. For billions of years animals have had a conservative brain, fight or flight when in danger, and all this automatically without reason or thought. Some lived to run another day but some jumped from the frying pan into the fire when perhaps what they ran from was the crack of a branch that had grown too heavy. Then along came the human neocortex and the capacity to anticipate the results of actions, to understand cause and effect. Now, the greater the reasoning skill of the brain the the better the course of action we can take. But compared to autonomic reactions, reasoning is slow.. So depending on the situation, whether the danger is real or imagined or whether the threat requires a near instantaneous response, reacting or reasoning can be effective or defective. It is the circumstance that we need to look at to call one or the other modality defective.

Wait, so you are saying we all had a conservative brain until our brain's evolved to a higher order of reasoning?

 

[repoman0]

All 29 pages...no thanks.

Just the last page will do. It must be worthwhile to at least be familiar with the last part of the conversation before chiming in?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Just the last page will do. It must be worthwhile to at least be familiar with the last part of the conversation before chiming in?

I missed the part where he said he was non-American. Sorry.

 

[repoman0]

I missed the part where he said he was non-American. Sorry.

To be fair there are plenty of Americans who don't vote and then bitch on both sides ... probably not on this forum though.

 

[agent00f]

I missed the part where he said he was non-American. Sorry.

Evidently not sorry enough to ever have learned from the habit of mouthing off with zero context or understanding of situation at hand.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Evidently not sorry enough to ever have learned from the habit of mouthing off with zero context or understanding of situation at hand.

Apparently not. I simply asked a question (i.e. "mouthing off") that I found later was previously answered when pointed out...I had no idea such minutia would anger you so. But I'll try to be sorrier next time to suit your apparent anger issues.

 

[Moonbeam]

Apparently not. I simply asked a question (i.e. "mouthing off") that I found later was previously answered when pointed out...I had no idea such minutia would anger you so. But I'll try to be sorrier next time to suit your apparent anger issues.

I believe we suffer from an incorrect attachment to moral values, the unconscious assumptions that out moral values are correct.

Here, for example, I think you saw a person you thought was a US citizen complaining about an election he didn't vote in and that is something that for you would be morally reprehensible to do so you implied as much in the tone of your question just in the way you asked it. Then you further compounded the issue by implying that reading 29 pages of the kind of horse shit that got posted in this thread would be beneath your dignity, not worth your time, or what have you, (thereby insulting the only person in this thread that matters, me.)

And along comes agent who has his own basket of moral assumptions based on his own also assumed certainty in their validity, one of which is that conservatives are given to mindless judgment, or at least that's how it looks to me. Thus he did what you did, implied that you function at an inferior level of decency.

For me, all this is an inevitability, the inevitability of an unexamined ego attachment whose purpose is to provide a sense of self worth based on conformity to imaginary ideals, a condition induced by punishment and shame. Those who are moral are good and those who are not are bad. The result is that we live in a guarded state, constantly in need of internal monitoring to assure ourselves of out own goodness, a ceaseless contest with others. ( I just thank god I'm better than that.)

Now the fact that humans are convinced there is a good and an evil that can be distinguished is pretty universal and my belief is that's because there is only the good, that at the highest expression of human nature there is only love. Evil can't exist in the mind of a person in that state. It's hard to convince the ego of this, in the first place because ego is a defense, and secondly what ever we think and do is that ego itself. The ego always sees itself as already being the good and the ego can't kill itself.

The bottom line here then as I see it is that there is no criticism of anybody for anything that is justified. We are robots running a program we don't know we are running and can't escape. We can maybe work at softening the edges of our opinions or if others can't maybe you can. Your friend Moonbeam who sometimes sees in moral outrage great spiritual suffering.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wait, so you are saying we all had a conservative brain until our brain's evolved to a higher order of reasoning?

I am saying that as a social animal a mix of liberal and conservative thinking working cooperatively within human society provides the optimal survival potential offered by those to forms of response. The conservative brain because it is more reactive to threat is better at early warnings of danger and the liberal brain is better able to suppress a fear response that would overwhelm rational judgement and that there should be appreciation for the capacities of the other on both sides. It is our higher order of reasoning that has changed our evolutionary conditions. We have the means to create a world where we cooperate as a single entity without constantly threatening each other, where false alarm bells don't constantly disrupt the peace and send us flying through the trees or running for the hills.

Such a world would offer infinite potential for the human race but severely impact the profit margins of whole lines of present human endeavor.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I believe we suffer from an incorrect attachment to moral values, the unconscious assumptions that out moral values are correct.

Here, for example, I think you saw a person you thought was a US citizen complaining about an election he didn't vote in and that is something that for you would be morally reprehensible to do so you implied as much in the tone of your question just in the way you asked it. Then you further compounded the issue by implying that reading 29 pages of the kind of horse shit that got posted in this thread would be beneath your dignity, not worth your time, or what have you, (thereby insulting the only person in this thread that matters, me.)

And along comes agent who has his own basket of moral assumptions based on his own also assumed certainty in their validity, one of which is that conservatives are given to mindless judgment, or at least that's how it looks to me. Thus he did what you did, implied that you function at an inferior level of decency.

For me, all this is an inevitability, the inevitability of an unexamined ego attachment whose purpose is to provide a sense of self worth based on conformity to imaginary ideals, a condition induced by punishment and shame. Those who are moral are good and those who are not are bad. The result is that we live in a guarded state, constantly in need of internal monitoring to assure ourselves of out own goodness, a ceaseless contest with others. ( I just thank god I'm better than that.)

Now the fact that humans are convinced there is a good and an evil that can be distinguished is pretty universal and my belief is that's because there is only the good, that at the highest expression of human nature there is only love. Evil can't exist in the mind of a person in that state. It's hard to convince the ego of this, in the first place because ego is a defense, and secondly what ever we think and do is that ego itself. The ego always sees itself as already being the good and the ego can't kill itself.

The bottom line here then as I see it is that there is no criticism of anybody for anything that is justified. We are robots running a program we don't know we are running and can't escape. We can maybe work at softening the edges of our opinions or if others can't maybe you can. Your friend Moonbeam who sometimes sees in moral outrage great spiritual suffering.

Should I be sorry or not for asking my original question? Being what others want me to be is suddenly getting very confusing lately. All I see here is a relatively minor misunderstanding, an angry man where a genuine apology just doesn't cut it, and a wall of text from you analyzing my motives in asking my question in the first place. For the record, my CBD (as you perceive it to be) is what it is and I'm OK with it. If this somehow bothers you, may I suggest that you look more closely at your ego and motives in "educating" a man who you perceive to be afflicted with great spiritual suffering.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I am saying that as a social animal a mix of liberal and conservative thinking working cooperatively within human society provides the optimal survival potential offered by those to forms of response. The conservative brain because it is more reactive to threat is better at early warnings of danger and the liberal brain is better able to suppress a fear response that would overwhelm rational judgement and that there should be appreciation for the capacities of the other on both sides. It is our higher order of reasoning that has changed our evolutionary conditions. We have the means to create a world where we cooperate as a single entity without constantly threatening each other, where false alarm bells don't constantly disrupt the peace and send us flying through the trees or running for the hills.

Such a world would offer infinite potential for the human race but severely impact the profit margins of whole lines of present human endeavor.

Moonbeam, did I ever ask you if you'd had occasion to take the Briggs-Myers test for personality or personality "style?" Are you an "F" or a "T" type? You're perspectives and way of expressing them makes me think you tend toward "F" but they are still quite useful for insight. And I would only say that in such a way, because I'm an XNTJ.

Here's a thought. Does the reaction to the administration's first Benghazi explanation admit the possibility of multiple-causation as considered by Clinton and her staff? Or does it assume that everything only has a single cause? So I have to ask why one side constantly wants to stir up fear and accuse the opposition of being blind, lax or foolish?

But my questions simply demonstrate what you've already noted.

 

[Moonbeam]

Doc Savage Fan: Should I be sorry or not for asking my original question? Being what others want me to be is suddenly getting very confusing lately.

M: I am not on about what you should or shouldn't feel. I was trying to suggest what the origin of 'should' implies, the presence of an unexamined moral assumption that freezes the option to an answer to that question. I am saying that when you see the nature of 'should' it frees you from that question. You asked a question of someone I think you felt shouldn't have expressed an opinion on something he divorced himself from doing anything about and because you hadn't read the thread didn't know he had already stated he wasn't a legal voter here. I see that as descriptive not a by me what you 'should' be in my opinion.

DSF: All I see here is a relatively minor misunderstanding, an angry man where a genuine apology just doesn't cut it, and a wall of text from you analyzing my motives in asking my question in the first place.

M: And? What did you make of my analysis. Seems like you felt it to be some sort of attack.

DSF: For the record, my CBD (as you perceive it to be) is what it is and I'm OK with it. If this somehow bothers you, may I suggest that you look more closely at your ego and motives in "educating" a man who you perceive to be afflicted with great spiritual suffering.

M: Well I think you misread me. I wasn't saying 'afflicted' but 'gifted' and manifest rather better than most. Perhaps, however, I am thoughtless to want to share my observations. I am perhaps far too comfortable with the notion that the pain I feel in dealing with others is pain that I already suffer and 'shouldn't', that magic word, assume that truth would be accepted by others.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonbeam, did I ever ask you if you'd had occasion to take the Briggs-Myers test for personality or personality "style?" Are you an "F" or a "T" type? You're perspectives and way of expressing them makes me think you tend toward "F" but they are still quite useful for insight. And I would only say that in such a way, because I'm an XNTJ.

Here's a thought. Does the reaction to the administration's first Benghazi explanation admit the possibility of multiple-causation as considered by Clinton and her staff? Or does it assume that everything only has a single cause? So I have to ask why one side constantly wants to stir up fear and accuse the opposition of being blind, lax or foolish?

But my questions simply demonstrate what you've already noted.

Dear BD, I can't tell you my surprise at this post. It represents just one more odd experience that seems to happen with some regularity to me. I have a question as to whether other people are psychic or I am some kind of sender. Yesterday in reading one of your cogent posts I began to think seriously where you would fall on 8 letter thingi, the Briggs Myers test and in particular between T,F and J. P part. I promise you this is the truth.

My first response to your question is that I come up on it as dyslexic. I can never keep straight in my head what those letters stand for or when I look up what they symbolize what that word means I am constantly referring to another web page that describes them as I write this.

I have taken the test off and on and have a terrible time doing so as on any one day I seem to feel differently about how I answer. My friend, LunarRay assures me, however, that I am an INFP. Looking over the characteristics again I see a person who is a P conflicted by wishes that he weren't. As far as F and T go I seem want to fall almost exactly down the middle.


Thinking Feeling
Decides with head Decides with heart > Head and heart seem to agree
Judge based on logic Judge based on feelings > My feelings seem very logical to me
Driven by thought Driven by emotion > My thoughts and emotions seem to agree
Critical Empathetic > No criticism seems valid that isn't empathetic
Gives priority to truth Gives priority to relationships > Truth is always the integration of the relationship of opposites.
Impersonal Personal > What is the difference? What does this mean?
Not easily upset by others' remarks Takes remarks personally > Saddened by the fact that remarks are often intended to hurt and that the intent has nothing to do with me.
Rational Passionate > Passionate within the limits of reason seems like a good place to be.

As to your questions: "Does the reaction to the administration's first Benghazi explanation admit the possibility of multiple-causation as considered by Clinton and her staff? Or does it assume that everything only has a single cause? So I have to ask why one side constantly wants to stir up fear and accuse the opposition of being blind, lax or foolish?"

I have to say I don't understand the first and the second but the answer to the third is probably that they stir up fear because they are afraid. Fear imagines that the answer to danger is to be in control. You can't trust a trusting liberal with control. They appear to be congenitally unable to assess real danger. That's what paranoia is. I believe this happens because we were psychically murdered in childhood by the people who 'love' us. We are only safe if we distrust everything. The ultimate result of such insanity, however, is that only one man will be left standing and he will be left with no recourse but to turn on himself.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're bitching and didn't even bother to vote? Really?

Go back and read the exchange again. This time try actually reading the words. They will give you the explanation as to why I did not vote in the recent presidential election. And it will blow your mind.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I am saying that as a social animal a mix of liberal and conservative thinking working cooperatively within human society provides the optimal survival potential offered by those to forms of response. The conservative brain because it is more reactive to threat is better at early warnings of danger and the liberal brain is better able to suppress a fear response that would overwhelm rational judgement and that there should be appreciation for the capacities of the other on both sides. It is our higher order of reasoning that has changed our evolutionary conditions. We have the means to create a world where we cooperate as a single entity without constantly threatening each other, where false alarm bells don't constantly disrupt the peace and send us flying through the trees or running for the hills.

Such a world would offer infinite potential for the human race but severely impact the profit margins of whole lines of present human endeavor.

I suppose it all depends on how one defines 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suppose it all depends on how one defines 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

The way the researchers discovered the differences in conservative and liberal brains was by grouping them up according to how each of them defined his or herself. People who say they are conservative have larger amygdalae than folk who say they are liberals.

 

[norseamd]

You're bitching and didn't even bother to vote? Really?

Youre bitching at a Canadian for not voting in the US election?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You're a real douche apple, trust me i have context and understanding of the situation at hand.

Youre bitching at a Canadian for not voting in the US election?

I'm bitching at a piece of shit Canadian that for some reason insists on commenting about United States politics as if any of us give a rat's ass about his petty little opinion. Go talk about pretty pony Justin and his Castro eulogy.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You're a real douche apple, trust me i have context and understanding of the situation at hand.

I'm bitching at a piece of shit Canadian that for some reason insists on commenting about United States politics as if any of us give a rat's ass about his petty little opinion. Go talk about pretty pony Justin and his Castro eulogy.

Apologies for contributing to your triggering.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Youre bitching at a Canadian for not voting in the US election?

The Democrats weren't paying enough per vote to make it worth my while.

 

[ivwshane]

You're a real douche apple, trust me i have context and understanding of the situation at hand.

I'm bitching at a piece of shit Canadian that for some reason insists on commenting about United States politics as if any of us give a rat's ass about his petty little opinion. Go talk about pretty pony Justin and his Castro eulogy.

I care about his opinion. Then again I'm of the opinion that a view from outside of the bubble is a good thing. You apparently need your bubble to be untouched.

 

[Jhhnn]

.

You're a real douche apple, trust me i have context and understanding of the situation at hand.

I'm bitching at a piece of shit Canadian that for some reason insists on commenting about United States politics as if any of us give a rat's ass about his petty little opinion. Go talk about pretty pony Justin and his Castro eulogy.

You didn't seem to have any problem with the Russians meddling in the election or Trump begging for more.

 

[agent00f]

I believe we suffer from an incorrect attachment to moral values, the unconscious assumptions that out moral values are correct.

Here, for example, I think you saw a person you thought was a US citizen complaining about an election he didn't vote in and that is something that for you would be morally reprehensible to do so you implied as much in the tone of your question just in the way you asked it. Then you further compounded the issue by implying that reading 29 pages of the kind of horse shit that got posted in this thread would be beneath your dignity, not worth your time, or what have you, (thereby insulting the only person in this thread that matters, me.)

And along comes agent who has his own basket of moral assumptions based on his own also assumed certainty in their validity, one of which is that conservatives are given to mindless judgment, or at least that's how it looks to me. Thus he did what you did, implied that you function at an inferior level of decency.

For me, all this is an inevitability, the inevitability of an unexamined ego attachment whose purpose is to provide a sense of self worth based on conformity to imaginary ideals, a condition induced by punishment and shame. Those who are moral are good and those who are not are bad. The result is that we live in a guarded state, constantly in need of internal monitoring to assure ourselves of out own goodness, a ceaseless contest with others. ( I just thank god I'm better than that.)

Now the fact that humans are convinced there is a good and an evil that can be distinguished is pretty universal and my belief is that's because there is only the good, that at the highest expression of human nature there is only love. Evil can't exist in the mind of a person in that state. It's hard to convince the ego of this, in the first place because ego is a defense, and secondly what ever we think and do is that ego itself. The ego always sees itself as already being the good and the ego can't kill itself.

The bottom line here then as I see it is that there is no criticism of anybody for anything that is justified. We are robots running a program we don't know we are running and can't escape. We can maybe work at softening the edges of our opinions or if others can't maybe you can. Your friend Moonbeam who sometimes sees in moral outrage great spiritual suffering.

Just a heads up I use people's own moral assumptions to judge their behavior. This is most effective esp since many have a hard time comprehending the assumptions of others. That's why I wouldn't say the same thing even when buckshot acts the same as doc. Eg. doc actually values decency to some degree, and thus might have reservations about someone like trump even if he's compelled to look the other way. As a result of these observations I sometimes mention how liberal v conservative stackrank of moral virtues generally differ, thus the reason why their judgements of the same behavior differ leading to much conflict.

As other examples, buckshot's supposed christian ethics are used to judge him and you might've noticed your ethics in encounters with you.

 

[werepossum]

Here's the quick version. For billions of years animals have had a conservative brain, fight or flight when in danger, and all this automatically without reason or thought. Some lived to run another day but some jumped from the frying pan into the fire when perhaps what they ran from was the crack of a branch that had grown too heavy. Then along came the human neocortex and the capacity to anticipate the results of actions, to understand cause and effect. Now, the greater the reasoning skill of the brain the the better the course of action we can take. But compared to autonomic reactions, reasoning is slow.. So depending on the situation, whether the danger is real or imagined or whether the threat requires a near instantaneous response, reacting or reasoning can be effective or defective. It is the circumstance that we need to look at to call one or the other modality defective.

You are actually claiming that an election taking two full years of electioneering moved too quickly for the highly evolved leftist brain?

Maybe if you guys could defer the pressing issues like which restroom you should visit or which words become micro aggressions next, things like this wouldn't move more quickly than you can react.